Valavanur railway station ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

In the deletion discussion there were several arguments put forward on what to do with the article, which is about a train station in India. A few different arguments were put forward:

• The nominator, Buidhe, said that she could not find sources that would count towards GNG. The nominator proposed, as an alternative to deletion, that the article be redirected to a more general article.
• Those who supported keeping offered a few different arguments. A few users argued that since WP:RAILOUTCOMES says that railroads are often kept at AfD, this specific railroad should be kept. Along a similar line, another user claimed that there was "consensus" that all railway stations should be kept. One user added citations to the article, with users saying that the citations satisfied concerns about WP:V.
• Two editors supported draftification citing concerns about WP:V.
• I expressed concerns regarding whether or not the article met the requirements of significant coverage.

The close was keep. WP:V has been addressed. The rationale for this close was fatally incomplete, resulting in an erroneous close as there being an affirmative consensus to "keep". That WP:V has been addressed is indisputable, but the close doesn't actually make any analysis on whether or not the article meets any relevant notability guideline. WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is wikipedia policy, notes that Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline can be deleted. I brought up this concern to the closer on their talk page. In the closer's response, they indicated that their close was in part based on the notion that There is a general consensus that railway stations are notable and that we keep them, which satisfies [Deletion reason] #8.

The closer made a mistake in how they ascertained what the consensus was. In this case, the relevant notability guideline is pretty clearly WP:GEOFEAT, which itself specifies that the notability of artificial features related to infrastructure should be evaluated under WP:GNG and that [t]he inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Since this guideline is established community consensus, WP:CONLEVEL is relevant to this discussion; as a local consensus of editors at one particular AfD can't override community consensus on a wider scale regarding the relevant measure of notability. Therefore, policy cuts strongly against the notion that the closer could even entertain arguments all railroad stations are inherently notable; the relevant notability guideline pretty explicitly rejects this. As such, the close failed to properly assess consensus in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As such, I'm requesting this deletion review in light of WP:DRVPURPOSE#1.

Given that only two users brought up concerns that the relevant notability guideline is GNG (me and Buidhe) and that the discussion on that point was not extensive, I request that this close be overturned and relisted. The purpose of a relist would be to allow for additional conversation on the extent to which sources presented in the discussion help satisfy WP:GNG. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 02:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)TL;DR: the close didn't actually address anything about the relevant notability guidelines. When I asked the closer for clarification, they said that all railway stations are inherently notable and, for that reason, they found consensus that the station was notable. There is community consensus against granting per se notability to these sorts of things on the sole basis that they exist, so there was a fatal mistake in how the closer ascertained consensus. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 02:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• I agree, the close is not in keeping with P&Gs. Mere verifiable existence does not guarantee notability, and in this case supporters of keeping were not able to find any significant coverage. ( t · c) buidhe 02:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist I have for a while now been bothered by the constant cycle of events every time a train station stub is nominated at AfD, where a bunch of editors appear and simply say "keep because train stations are notable and we always keep them" while failing to provide any examples of significant coverage, indeed asserting that it isn't even needed. I did not mention GNG in my !vote at the AfD because I knew that the keep !voters would ignore me entirely. In this particular discussion, multiple editors appeared and voted keep without even pretending to care about the article having zero reliable sources. No policy-based arguments were made to support the retention of this article, which still fails GNG by a mile (entries in an atlas are not necessarily significant coverage). Interpreting consensus is not the same as simply adding up the votes and seeing which argument had greater numbers. This close did not agree with Wikipedia policy, and should therefore be overturned. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse With not a single editor other than the nom suggesting deletion, keep was the only reasonable outcome: editorial decisions can be started to discuss a merger, but not with the weight of an AfD. "V is met" indicates that there is no policy base for deletion remaining. N is a guideline not a policy, which explicitly expects that from time to time it will not be enforced. This appears to have been a decision where N being contested did not sway the community. Jclemens ( talk) 04:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  WP:Deletion policy is a policy. WP:DEL-REASON is a part of that policy and it explicitly notes that there is a valid reason to delete [a]rticles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Ain't that a policy? — Mhawk10 ( talk) 13:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Deletion policy is the how. Notability is the why. You're correct as to the first part, but I had been intending to reference the underlying cause, not the process involved. Obviously, NN things are nominated for deletion all the time. Jclemens ( talk) 04:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse There was a robust discussion and while I do think the closer should have done more to explain the close, I struggle to see another way the discussion would close with only one editor arguing for delete. (I do see the early draftify comments, expressed before sources were added). -- Enos733 ( talk) 05:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• No, that's an overturn and relist. The WP:RAILOUTCOMES argument that appeared early and got agreed with by others is highly erroneous. The closer would need to click the link to WP:RAILOUTCOMES and see what it actually says before assessing the consensus which in all fairness pretty clearly didn't happen there. It's not exactly a model closing statement either.— S Marshall  T/ C 09:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The three draftify votes were on the basis of there being no sources at all and thus failing WP:V. These concerns were addressed. If you look at past railway station AfDs, the closet's statement of There is a general consensus that railway stations are notable and that we keep them is absolutely correct. WP:GNG is a guideline, not policy, and it is perfectly reasonable for editors to decide that it is not required for a particular page. NemesisAT ( talk) 09:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• As the closer, I believe I have determined the consensus fairly accurately and that the OP's assessment that I made a mistake in determining it is erroneous. While I ascertain the closure statement to be lacking in words and have offered to amend, as I explained on my talk page; the draftification arguments argued for draftification for it being unsourced while also claimed it be probably notable- which was resolved later after adding sources making them moot. The Hindu article ( WP:THEHINDU) provided was not used in the article, which I later put it on the talk page for a future use. Provided this, I determined it to be a keep and closed it as such. S Marshall's comment that I didn't click the WP:RAILOUTCOMES and didn't read it; lacks any ground and is fallacious and fatuous. I mean I'm not a fool not to click on it in an AfD while closing it, and which was mentioned thrice. His comment is purely a bad faith one. I did verify the book referenced [and The Hindu article] post which I concluded that WP:V is satisfied nullifying the draftification arguments. — DaxServer ( t · m · c) 10:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  RAILOUTCOMES reads Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD, which this article satisfies. Personally I would go further and say disused stations that can be verified are generally kept as well. NemesisAT ( talk) 10:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Are you under the impression that we keep things because they're verifiable, DaxServer?— S Marshall  T/ C 11:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I am under the impression that we keep things because they’re notable. My closure statement might have given out the impression that your question poses. Like I said I’ve already offered [earlier] to amend my statement to better reflect [that it’s not because of just WP:V] — DaxServer (mobile) ( t · m · c) 11:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Hmm. Well, I think there's a whole lot more to AfD than notability. Did you give weight to any other policies in your close? Anything from WP:NOT, for example?— S Marshall  T/ C 12:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Which part of WP:NOT do you feel this article falls foul of? NemesisAT ( talk) 13:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I think that as written, it likely fails the first limb of NOTDIR. It's sourced to timetables and a .pdf which doesn't contain the search string "Valavanur". That could possibly be overcome by developing the article, because The Hindu source that isn't yet cited does contains one tiny bit of information that isn't pure directory: to whit, that Valavanur has a problem with low capacity because it's not a block station. This is the only non-directory information that anyone has found. But that brings up the RAILOUTCOMES problem I mentioned earlier. A low-capacity passenger station that isn't a block station, is better described as light rail, not heavy rail, so implementing RAILOUTCOMES strictly would in fact lead to deletion.— S Marshall  T/ C 16:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I'm not convinced it falls foul of WP:NOTDIR, even if all the sources are timetables. It isn't formatted as a simple listing, it's formatted as an article.

  I have never heard of a "block station" before but if you're referring to a station without a passing loop, much of the Far North Line and Kyle of Lochalsh line could be classed as "light rail"! I don't think that's an accurate definition of light rail. NemesisAT ( talk) 18:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I've told you this more times than I can count, but RAILOUTCOMES is neither a policy nor a guideline, and I'd really appreciate if you'd stop acting like it is. "This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." You cannot just say "per RAILOUTCOMES" and silence any concerns about verifiability or notability. That you cannot cite any policies or guidelines to support your position speaks a great deal as to its lack of validity. You say that "GNG is a guideline, not policy", but a guideline still trumps something like RAILOUTCOMES. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 13:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I didn't just say "per RAILOUTCOMES". I expanded by writing I don't see how deleting this would improve Wikipedia as having articles for some stations and not others would create inconsistency. Likely to be sources available offline and/or in the local language. This is a valid rationale that wasn't challenged, except for the ad hominem It doesn't apply. NemesisAT never actually cites policy in their !votes at AfDs. from yourself. NemesisAT ( talk) 13:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  "NemesisAT never actually cites policy in their !votes at AfDs" is an entirely accurate statement, and you know it. If you'd like, I can compile a long list of policy-deficient or even blatantly against-policy votes you've made at various AfDs to prove the point. I don't see how deleting this would improve Wikipedia as having articles for some stations and not others would create inconsistency See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Likely to be sources available offline and/or in the local language See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Your entire rationale was and is invalid. Your arguments are fallacious and border on IDHT. You cannot provide sources that demonstrate notability, so just admit this article fails GNG, which we all know is true. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Reasonable reading of the debate and not inconsistent with policy. Stifle ( talk) 11:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse accurate close regarding the debate Atlantic306 ( talk) 14:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse and relist The closer is to determine the result of the discussion, and they did that. They are not supposed to be a supervote. "Weak" because they implied that wp:ver was the criteria or a lens to weigh arguments. Relist because under the guidelines, this article should have been deleted. Not only the letter of the guidelines but also the spirit of them........not notable by any meaning of notable.North8000 ( talk) 18:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn not a decision for a non-admin when there are disparate opinions and a topic area that isn't settled w/r/t notability. Star Mississippi 18:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• bad close. Meeting WP:V doesn’t speak to the nominators rationale for deletion of not meeting the GNG. Bad nomination, nomination needs to evaluate the possibility of a redirect prior to listing, and if redirect is on the table, WP:ATD-R applies and the discussion should be speedy closed. The D in AfD is for deletion, not discussion. AfD should not be used to open ended questions. Deletion was not on the cards. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Relist is a negative because there’s no chance the discussion will turn to a consensus to delete. Let it stand and advise to read WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  A 2021 RfC found that [m]ost users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting. WP:BLAR itself actually specifies AfD as a method of handling contested blank-and-redirects. Seeing as this was a controversial blank and redirect proposal, Buidhe made the right call in sending it to AfD rather than unilaterally performing the BLAR herself. — Mhawk10 ( talk) 15:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  No User:Mhawk10, along the lines of your procedure, User:Buidhe prematurely escalated. If Buidhe thought it too controversial for a bold redirect, then they should have used Talk:Valavanur railway station. There was no evidence of a controversy for AfD to settle. Article talk pages should be used first, and if it becomes a dispute over a WP:Pseudo-deletion by redirection, then and only then should it go to AfD.

  The real problem with these premature AfDs is the lack of substance and focus in the AfD nomination, and that makes for a meandering unfocused AfD discussion, as happened.

  If it needs AfD, the AfD needs a better quality nomination. That will not be achieved by a relist. It will be achieved by following the advice at WP:RENOM. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Relist (involved) Appellant's rationale seems reasonable, and relists are relatively cheap. The discussion sort of got side tracked from the original rationale with the WP:V concerns, the V got resolved but the nom's argument sort of got ignored. Jumpytoo Talk 07:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse - A valid conclusion from the discussion, where No Consensus would have also been a valid conclusion. The closer should have provided a better explanation of the rationale for the close. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Relist (involved) per nom. XtraJovial ( talk) 00:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist firstly a poor close, in terms of explanation and citing a non-relevant policy, but secondly railoutcomes is on particularly weak grounds in terms of an explanatory supplement because it's trying to use an essay as its further info. Nosebagbear ( talk) 09:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse without prejudice to a merge discussion (involved). When we have a verifiably extant railway station (which we do) there is no chance at all of AfD ending in delete - the only possible outcomes are "keep" or "merge". If the nominator or anyone else thinks this lacks sufficient notability for a stand-alone article then they should nominate it for merging to the appropriate article (in most cases that would be the line or system that it's on). However they should also be prepared to either explain why this station is different to any others on the same line that have individual articles or nominate them all for merging (because otherwise the discussion will just be a waste of everybody's time). I would also recommend that prior to any discussion (merge or AfD) time is spent searching for sources in Tamil (which is the language sources are most likely to be in) so that the discussion is an informed one. Expecting a railway station in India built in the 1870s to have a massive amount of sources available on the internet in English is foolish. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  quite right. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Endorse without prejudice to a merge discussion, mostly per Thyrduulf. Which isn't to say that the close was handled well. But the final result was correct. Hobit ( talk) 05:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply